"A Striver, A Polemicist And A Jerk"

As of the current writing, these are the leading candidates for president of the United States.  And by the way, if you use the word “polemicist” in public, you will have no chance in this race whatsoever. 

“Four syllables?  Forget about it!”

My first question – although in is not the first question on cable news programs; their first question is, “Who’s ahead?  Who’s behind?  Who’s on first?  What’s on second?”  (“I don’t know.”  “Third base.”)

This is my first question because it seems like the question we should be asking first; like when you step into a leaky rowboat, you first question is not “What kind of wood is this made out of?” but “Are we going to sink?” 

Since the preeminent issue is staring us in the face, my first question concerning our presidential candidates is…

“Is this the really best we can do?”

A striver, a polemicist and a jerk?

(Self-Awareness Acknowledgment:  This question, as with a preponderance of my questions, is not asked – not only first but ever at all – because it is a “dead-end” proposition, the realistic approach being, these are the candidates – deal with it!

“Hypotheticals” are irrelevant, not to mention an annoying pain in the ass. 

You will not be surprised to hear that I do not personally agree with this perception, believing instead that asking dead-end-appearing questions will attract attention to the issue, eventually ultimately generating a solution. 

“Dreamer!”

Guilty as charged.  Making me an unelectable candidate for president, “dreamer” being a more determinative disqualifier than striver, polemicist or jerk.  Plus, like Mr. Cruz, I was born in Canada.  Although my mother was, in fact, born in New York. 

I have to look into that.  Maybe I could run.  If I wanted to.  But I don’t.  So never mind.

As I mentioned not long ago – and I am known to repeat myself but who has original thoughts every day? – more than anything in my view, a presidential election is a popularity contest.  I shall revisit that assertion momentarily.  First, however, some historical underpinning, suggesting how the election of president became a popularity contest.

(And believe me – as one of the candidates is habitually braying – it is.  There was a survey once revealing that the candidate capturing the presidency is invariably the taller one.  Makes sense, doesn’t it?  Think about it.  Where in this country are short people more popular than tall people?  There’s a well-known songwriter who believes that short people have no a reason to live!)   

Okay.  What I am about you explain to you, you either already know, you don’t know but you don’t care, or you don’t know but you’d like to know, giving me a one in three chance of mentioning something worthwhile.

That’s better than my usual odds.  I’m goin’ for it!

In the “Parliamentary System of Democracy” – e.g. England and Canada – the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that, in the most recent election, won the most seats in the governing legislature.

Do you see what that means?  It means there is “Majority Government.”  Always.  (There are occasionally “Minority Governments”, but I am “this close” to boring you to tears already, so we shall leave it at that, though you can look that up if you’re interested.)

The consequence of “Majority Government” is obvious.  For the length of its tenure in power, the majority party gets to implement the policies that got them elected the majority party in the first place.  Though they can vigorously protest, the minority party cannot stop them, lacking the requisite votes to keep the majority party’s legislative bills from being enacted. 

There’s a lyric in “The Bum Won” from the musical Fiorello!

“People can do what they want to but I got a feeling it ain’t democratic.”    

The people elect their representatives, whose party’s leader – after an assiduous vetting process to insure the party’s rank-and-file and its leader’s sentiments are in sync – becomes Prime Minister.  The winners then control the legislative agenda.  If the people dislike the subsequent outcome, they can throw majority party out in the next election, electing the opposition party instead.

What do American’s think about that process?

“People can do what they want to but I got a feeling it ain’t democratic.”

Americans – in their wisdom, based on the Republican System of Government – elect their president separately from their legislators – one vote for their local representative, a distinct second vote for president, inviting “Divided Government” and consequent gridlock, plus an electoral process turning the presidential election into a popularity contest.  (Where the tallest candidate wins!  As if “Here, let me get that for you” foretells a superior leader for the Free World.)

A lot of people want no part of popularity contests, either because they are aware they are unpopular – mentioning no names here – or because they believe that the idea of deciding who will hold the most important job in the country on the basis of popularity is stupid.  (Or they did a terrible thing before running for president and they are afraid it’ll come out.  Seen anything of John Edwards lately?)

In the current arrangement, the election of president comes down, as the cliché goes, to

“Who would you rather have a beer with?”

The “Striver”?

“Two beers.  Make mine a little heartier.  I want to prove to ‘the people’ that I’m a ‘Regular Joe’.  Or in this case, ‘Joann’.  Hah-hah-hah.”

The “Polemicist”?

“Beer is fine, I have nothing against beer.  But let me tell you.  I am very concerned that alcohol is a tool of the “Powerful” in this country to cloud the minds of the proletariat.”

Or the “Jerk”.

“I know a lot of losers who drink beer – I hate to say it, but it’s true.  I’m going to order for you, okay?  Don’t worry about it.  It’s going to be great.”

I’ll tell ya.  If this were a poker game, I would happily throw in my cards and take my chances on better ones. 

Sad to say, this is not a poker game.

So we are required to play these ones.